"good" or "better"
Mark Wilson
emory2oo2 at hotmail.com
Tue Jun 25 16:53:27 EDT 2002
I think we should realize that any questions the Corinthians
have requested Paul to address were formulated after being
under Paul's teachings and leadership for 18 months. (Not everyone,
but most all of the leadership and teachers.)
Paul had spent this time teaching; so the questions that
have now surfaced perhaps are better seen as clarifications
to a gradual shift away from when he was present with them.
No doubt some began to question his teachings and just how
it was applicable, as we do today.
I do believe that Paul would have instructed those in Corinth
on sexual relations during his 18 month stay. I believe further that
he would have been very clear that no sexual activity is to take
place outside marriage. (Yes, Paul would have said that it is good
for a man not to touch a women, but someone may have taken it out
of its context, which seems probable.)
Here's my reconstruct of Paul's teaching during his first
18 month stay there. He would have taught: it is not only good,
but required, that no man touch a woman outside of marriage. He
would no doubt have sanctioned sexual intimacy within marriage.
This I believe would have been everyone's understanding of Paul's
teaching on sex, outside and within marriage, when he finally left
Corinth.
So, Paul did say that it was required and good that no man touch
a woman OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE. This would have been the CONTEXT in
which Paul actually uttered these very words.
As was/is always the case, people soon began
to question or wonder how something would apply in this or that
situation. Over time, a question arose that the Corinthians wanted
Paul to once again clarify.
So, the Corinthians ask Paul a question, found in 7:1: Is it good
for a man not to touch a woman? (I do believe this is a question
not a statement. But it nevertheless was the very words that Paul
spoke, but of course, within a specific context, of those unmarried.)
I do not really see this being a significant issue within those
married in Corinth; this primarily dealt with the unmarried, as
verse 9 reiterates. So Paul simply answers their question, but in
a fashion complete and exhaustive to avoid the need to address such
a question again... a question that reflected that some had twisted
this simple and basic Christian teaching by applying words spoken
within a specific context to a completely unrelated issue.
It would not surprise me if this question was primarily being
challenged by the unmarried, who felt their sexual desires could
not be fulfilled.
What was happening in Corinth regarding the difficulty with
sexual abstinence outside of marriage was a prevalent then as now.
Nothing has changed in 2000 years; same issues, same answers.
So, Paul answers this question of 7:1: to avoid sexual immorality (which
of course necessitates that many were struggling with this issue
of "no sex outside marriage"), the answer is: get marriage.
In fact, if you can not control your sexual urges, that is your
indicator to marry.... or to say it another way... you do not have
the gift of celibacy. For Paul, if your body clearly must have
sex, then get married for Pete's sake :o ) (Who is this Pete?)
If Paul has been told of a problem of married couples unclear of
the role of sex within the marriage, it seems to have been a very
minor problem/issue, one Paul quickly resolves.
My thoughts,
Mark Wilson
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list